THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Monday, September 18, 2006

Who is Castle Really Working for? Part III-b

Budget Neutral

These duty suspensions, tax cuts, corporate welfare - whatever you want to call them, purchased by Syngenta and Dupont through Mr. Castle are illegal would have been illegal if Democrats were in charge.

The budget act of 1990 requires that all significant revenues losses be “offset” by a spending cut or a revenue increase elsewhere in the federal budget. However, revenue losses of less than a half-million dollars are considered de minimis and do not require an offset. hhlaw PDF

Since the benefit to DuPont and Syngenta and the corresponding loss to the treasury is over $210 million it is clear that these earmarks are illegal...............Where are all my conservative balanced budget hawks?.............PayGo expired in 2002; Russ Feingold tried to renew it but the renewal died in the Senate on a 50-50 vote.The Hill: PAYGO can work againBy Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)

"When PAYGO was on the books during the 1990s, it worked. While it was not perfect, it worked well enough to help lower the deficit and, eventually, balance the federal budget. (snip) PAYGO expired in 2002. It is no coincidence that in that same year, the budget plunged back into the red."

Thanks GOP! That is some good GOP style governing!! And thanks to a Delawareliberal reader for the catch.

You know, you may have tapped a vein here. Farmers are already pissed at Dupont, Monsanto, and all companies trying to lock them in via contract to specific seeds and chemicals. But now when they hear those same companies are also not paying their fair share in taxes - oh my.

I am against PAYGO right now because politicians are impotent when it comes to fixing entitlements, and that will result in colossal spending increases, which would mandate colossal tax hikes. If the spending can be curtailed, then we can go with PAYGO. I'm not against it in principal.

"tax cuts for the rich"

That's a real sophisticated economic talking point, anon. I would bow down to your immense intellect, but I don't know your name.